According to the CJEU press release of 29 February 2024:

"An Iranian whose initial application for international protection was dismissed by the Austrian authorities lodged a fresh application (‘subsequent application') for international protection in Austria. He stated that he had in the meantime converted to Christianity and, on that ground, feared persecution in his country of origin.

The applicant was then granted subsidiary protection status and a fixed-period residence permit. The Austrian authorities found that he had credibly demonstrated that he had converted to Christianity in Austria ‘out of inner conviction' and that he actively practised his faith. For that reason, he risked being exposed to individual persecution in the event that he returned to his country of origin.

However, the Austrian authorities refused to grant him refugee status. Austrian law makes the recognition of the status of refugee following a subsequent application subject to the condition that the new circumstance which the applicant has created by his or her own decision must constitute the expression and continuation of convictions held in the country of origin.

The Austrian administrative court asks the Court of Justice whether such a condition is compatible with the Qualification Directive. The Court answers in the negative.

The Qualification Directive does not permit a presumption that any subsequent application based on circumstances which the applicant has created by his or her own decision since leaving the country of origin stems from abusive intent and abuse of the procedure for the grant of international protection. Any subsequent application must be assessed on an individual basis.

Thus, where it is found, as in the present case, that the applicant has credibly demonstrated that he had converted to Christianity ‘out of inner conviction' and actively practices that faith, that is such as to rule out the existence of abusive intent or abuse of the applicable procedure. If such an applicant fulfils the conditions provided for by the directive to qualify as a refugee, he must be granted that status.

However, where it is found that there is abusive intent and abuse of the applicable procedure, the granting of refugee status may be refused, even when the applicant has justified fears of being persecuted in his or her country of origin as a result of circumstances created by his or her own decision. In that case, he or she nevertheless retains the status of refugee under the Geneva Convention. In such a scenario, the applicant must be able to benefit from the protection guaranteed by that convention, which prohibits, inter alia, expelling or returning (‘refouler') a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of, inter alia, his or her religion."